tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN November 9, 2012 8:00pm-10:30pm EST
we saw in this election. with the changing demographics and the growth in the latino community, these votes are going to be even more relevant in the future. >host: >> next, president obama and john boehner talk about the fiscal cliff. after that, the white house press briefing with jay carney. >> president obama says that tuesday's elections show that most americans agree with the deficit reduction plan. the president has invited presidential leaders to discuss the deficit and warned about the potential effects of the fiscal cliff. that is this series of tax increases and budget cuts that take effect in january if congress does not act. the president addressed an audience from the white house east room.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president and the vice president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you. good afternoon, everybody. now that those of us on the
campaign trail have had a chance to get a little sleep, it is time to get back to work, and there's plenty of work to do. as i said on tuesday night, the american people voted for action, not politics as usual. you elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. in that spirit, i have invited leaders of both parties to the white house next week so we can start to build consensus around the challenges that we can only solve together. i also intend to bring in business and labor and civic leaders from all across the country to get their ideas as well. in a time when our economy is still recovering from the great recession, our top priority has
to be jobs and growth. that is the focus of the plan that i talked about during the campaign. [applause] it is a plan to reward small businesses and manufacturers to create jobs here, not overseas, a plan to give people the chance to get the education and training that businesses are looking for right now. it is a plan to make sure this country is a global leader in research and technology and clean energy, which will attract new companies and high- wage jobs for america. it is a plan put americans back to work, including veterans, rebuilding our infrastructure, and it is a plan to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way. our work is made that much more urgent because at the end of this year we face a series of deadlines that require us to make major decisions about how to pay our deficit down, decisions that will have a huge impact on economies and the middle class, both now and in the future.
last year i worked with democrats and republicans to cut $1 trillion in spending that we could not afford. i intend to work with both parties to do more, and that includes making reforms that will bring down the cost of health care so we can strengthen the programs like medicaid and medicare for the long haul. but as i have said before, we cannot just cut our way to prosperity. if we are serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more in taxes. that is how we did it -- [applause] that is how we did it in the 1990's when bill clinton was president, and that is how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy.
that is the only way we can still afford to train our workers or help our kids pay for college or make sure that good jobs and clean energy in high- tech manufacturing do not and other countries like china. already i have put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments by reducing the deficit $4 trillion over the next decade. i want to be clear -- i am not wedded to every detail of my plan, i am open to compromise, i am open to new ideas. i am committed to solving our fiscal challenges. but i refuse to accept any approach that is not balanced. i am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 are not asked to pay a dime more in taxes. i am not going to do that. [applause]
i just want to point out this was a central question during the election. it was debated over and over again, and on tuesday night we found out that the majority of americans agree with my approach, and that includes democrats, independents, and a lot of republicans across the country, as well as independent economists and budget experts. our job now is to get a majority in congress to reflect the will of the american people. i believe we can get that majority. i was encouraged to hear speaker boehner agree that tax revenue has to be part of this question, so i look forward to hearing his ideas when i see him next week. let me make one final point that every american needs to hear. right now if congress fails to come to an agreement on an overall deficit reduction package by the end of the year,
everybody's taxes will automatically go up on january 1, including the 98% of americans who make less than $250,000 a year. that makes no sense. it would be bad for the economy and would hit families that are already struggling to make ends meet. fortunately, we should not need long negotiations or drama to solve that part of the problem. while there may be disagreements in congress over whether or not to raise taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year, nobody -- not republicans, not democrats -- want taxes to go up for folks making under $250,000 a year. let's not wait. even as we are negotiating a broader deficit reduction package, let's extend the middle-class tax cut. let's do that right now. [applause]
that one step would give millions of families -- 98% of americans and 97% of small businesses -- the same certainty that they need going into the new year. it would immediately take a huge chunk of the economic uncertainty off the table, and that will lead to new jobs and faster growth. business will know that consumers are not going to see a big tax increase. they will know that most small businesses will not seek a tax increase. a lot of the uncertainty you are reading about will be removed. in fact, the senate has already passed a bill doing this, so all we need is action from the house. i have the pen, ready to sign the bill, right away. i am ready to do it.
i am ready to do it. [applause] the american people understand we will have differences and disagreements in the months to come. they get that. on tuesday they said loud and clear that they will not tolerate dysfunction, they will not tolerate politicians who view "compromise" as a dirty word, not when so many families and small businesses are struggling to pay the bills. the american people are looking for cooperation, looking for a consensus. they are looking for common sense. most of all, they want action. i intend to deliver for them in my second term, and i expect to find willing partners in both parties to make that happen. let's get to work. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. [applause] thank you, guys. >> prior to the president's
remarks, house speaker john boehner said a report by the congressional budget office proved that ending the bush era tax cuts would hurt the economy. in his second news conference, speaker boehner said he hoped that 2013 would be the year for tax code an entitlement reforms. his remarks are about 10 minutes. >> about 24 hours after spoke to the congressional budget office, i explained there were terrible consequences of the fiscal cliff that would come from increasing tax rates. according to ernst and young, raising the top rates would
destroy nearly 700,000 jobs in our country. the members of our majority understand how important it is to avert the fiscal cliff. that is why the house took action earlier this year, to replace the sequester with other types of cuts, and is also why of the summer we passed a bill to extend all of the current tax rates. for one year so we had time to overhaul our tax code. and that is why i outlined the responsible path forward, where we can replace the spending cuts and extend the current rates, paving the way for entitlement reform, as well as tax reform with lower rates. at 2013 should be the year that we begin to solve our debt through tax reform and entitlement reform. i am proposing that we avert the fiscal cliff together in a
manner that ensures that 2013 is finally the year that our government comes to grips with the major problems that are facing us. we will bring jobs home that result in a stronger, healthier economy, and a stronger healthier economy means more americans working and more revenues, which is what the president is seeking. this framework can lead to common ground, and i hope the president will respond today in that same spirit. as i said wednesday, this is an opportunity for the president to lead. this is his moment to engage the congress and work towards a solution that can pass both chambers. earlier this week, the president and i had a short conversation. it was cordial. i think we both understand that trying to find a way to avert the fiscal cliff is important for our country, and i'm hopeful that productive conversations can begin soon so that we can
forge an agreement that can pass the congress. and with that, i will be happy to answer questions. [inaudible] >> when the president and i have been able to come to an agreement, there has been no problem getting it passed here in the house. >> you have out what your goal of not having tax rates go up, but you did not lay out a deficit goal.
what is the deficit goal that you have in mind? >> clearly, the deficit is a drag on our economy and we cannot continue to spend money that we don't have. i don't want to box myself in or box in anybody else. i think it is important to come to agreement with the president, but this is his opportunity to lead. >> mr. speaker, going -- >> nope, you violate rules, disqualified. >> what? [inaudible] >> it is clear that there are a lot of special interest to the polls, both corporate and personal. it is also clear there are all kinds of deductions, some of which makes sense, others don't.
by lowering rates and cleaning up the tax code, we know that we will get more economic growth. it will bring jobs back to america. it will bring more revenue. we also know if we plate -- clean up the code and make it simpler, the tax code will be more efficient. the current code only collects about 85% of what is due the government. it is clear if you have a simpler, cleaner, more fair tax code, that efficiency, the effectiveness and efficiency of the tax code increases exponentially. jake? >> [inaudible] why'd you have any leverage whatsoever? >> there is a republican majority in the house. the american people reelected
the republican majority, and i am proud of the fact that our team and a very difficult year was able to maintain our majority. there are a lot of races out there outstanding, but, jake, it is clear as a political party we have some work to do. i think the principles of our party are sound. we believe in individual responsibility. we believe in empowering our citizens. we believe in the american dream. we want that dream for everyone. but how we talk about who we are as a party is clearly conversations that are underway and will continue. >> do you plan to have a vote next week about the legislation -- >> you will have to ask mr. scammer. -- mr. kantor. i did not schedule the floor. >> could you talk about raising the debt limit as leverage on
the fiscal cliff? >> it is an issue that will have to be addressed, sooner rather than later. >> following on jake's question, a number of exit polls tuesday night said that there were overwhelming numbers of americans, 60% or more, who favored raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. will you be guided by that principle at all when you sit down to do this? >> listen, the problem with raising tax rates on the wealthiest americans is more than half of them are small business owners. we know from ernst and young, 700,000 jobs would be destroyed. we also know that it would slow down our economy. the number one issue in the election was about the economy and jobs. everyone wants to get our economy moving again. everyone wants to get more americans back to work again. raising tax rates will slow down
our ability to create the jobs that everyone says they want. jonathan? >> what are you looking for on the entitlement side? are you talking about the growth of social security and the military? spending awe're trillion dollars more than what we take in. we cannot continue to do that. this is year two of a 25-year demographic bauble that was not like anyone could not see it coming. 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 per week. this is just the second year of the 25-year baby boom bubble. this has to be dealt with. everything on the revenue side and on the spending side has to be looked at.
>> mr. speaker project onno, i'm not on to call you. i'm not blind. no, the young lady. >> thank you, on emigration, he spoke about the immigration reform -- use book about the immigration reform. are you endorsing the pathway to citizenship? >> i am not talking about a 3000-page bill. i'm talking about a common sense, step-by-step approach to secure our borders, allow us to enforce our laws, and fix a broken immigration system. but again, on an issue this big, the president has to lead. i think members on both sides of the aisle want to resolve this issue, the president will have to leave here. >> are you embracing the pathway -- >> i am not going to get into the details of how you get there. it is just time to get the job done. >> mr. speaker, it sounds like
you are talking about setting a framework for next year to do tax reform and entitlements, but now, with the sequester, the medicare problem, and you have spoken about this as a concept of a down payment. could you go into more what that would be? >> i would rather not do that because i do not want to limit the options available to me or limit the options that might be available to the white house. there are a lot of ways to get there. precludeeally want to anyone who might have a good idea about how we move forward. but it is clear, it is clear that we have to fix our broken tax system and we have to deal with our spending problem. >> what would you need to pay for the general sequester immediately, or is that part of a bigger deal? >> a nice try. [laughter]
>> does calling at tax reform give you a better way of selling it to your caucus in terms of increasing revenues in terms of seventh thing that is revenue neutral? -- in terms of something that is revenue neutral? >> we have had this discussion over the course of the last year-and-a-half. when the president and i were attempting to deal with the problem a year-and-a-half ago, there were revenues on the table. you can produce revenue and put revenue on the table through fixing are broken tax system, getting our economy going again, and getting more americans back to work. thanks, everybody. >> senate majority leader harry reid released a statement concerning the fiscal cliff. he said in part, "the senate passed a bill to cut taxes for americans making less than a
quarter million dollars and the house should pass it immediately. our bill cuts taxes for small businesses. when republicans talk about small business, they're really trying to protect millionaires like donald trott." -- donald trump." " i am optimistic we can meet this challenge before the end of the year. congress returns next week. we talked with a capitol hill reporter about what the house might do on the fiscal cliff issue. >> billy house is the house leadership reporter for the national journal. house speaker john boehner has appeared before the cameras every day since the election. what is he sang about the coming work on fiscal issues? >> he is trying to set a tone, i believe, of putting the onus on president obama to show leadership. in reality, he is not really
offering anything that they have not been offering for several months in terms of taxes and some other items, but he is trying to get out front and shown at least they're willing to talk, and president obama today responded and said, yeah, let's talk. >> some news reports are characterizing speaker boehner's comments as a softening or a change in what he said before the elections. what is the truth, has he changed positions? >> softer tone, same position. they say the higher income rates, or any of the rates, they will not go on with reductions. the issue is whether or not to extend the rates that were put in place under former president bush, the lower rates. those expire through the year. republicans say all of them, even those for the higher income earners, need to be extended at least one year as the work and more comprehensive efforts to
take on this fiscal cliff. >> has the speaker clued us in on how he will reach an agreement with the president on of flooding are getting past the fiscal cliff? that he will say the house passed a bill already that will address those things, including extending the bush tax cuts, but also making cuts other than those that are called in to sequester reductions. replacing some of those military cuts with cuts elsewhere. a lot of republican house ideas are to make cuts in social safety nets, like food stamps. that will not fly with democrats in the house or the senate. >> what are congressional democrats and the president looking for? >> it would say more broadly a balanced approach. in other words, hey, let's at least increase the tax rates, but those tax rates increased on the higher income, the 2% of the wealthiest americans, and that would go a long way to helping us not have to find so many other cuts and items to sort of
get around this big hit of spending cuts and tax increases we are headed for. >> what is the timetable for action on all of this? >> the so called sequester cuts hit on january 2. if they are not dealt with. though, when it would actually hit agencies and others, it will trickle into the year. the bush tax cuts technically and at the end of the year. but right around a corner is another problem, and that is the impending debt ceiling, our nation's ability to continue borrowing will have reached its cap. of course, that will lead to some more battles about how high we should extend it and what cuts should be made to let that happen. >> what is more likely, a final agreement on all of these outstanding issues or some sort of short-term band-aid to get past the end of the year?
>> i think that is what we have, a band-aid, a bridge, a small barkin, what everyone to call it, there is already talk about a return for keeping it down the road six months, maybe john boehner could get his troops on board with cutting half, doing half the cuts that are called for. now, some conservatives, including jim jordan, who is now head of the republican senate committee, from ohio, says, no, we want to do the cuts. we are not interested in taking it down the road. if we do that, we come out of the 2011 budget control act having done nothing except increase spending and have no cuts to show. there will be battles over that, but i think in the end they will do a small part in that will get us into next year. >> he mentioned the president's invitation to congressional leaders to come to the white house to talk about this. what is he hoping to achieve in
that meeting? >> i think he will say, hey, first of all he will probably repeat what he said today, that we won the election. we, if anybody can have the mandate on taxes. of course, speaker boehner will say, i believe we still have some more than two dozen seat advantage in this house. but i think they will all come together and say, hey, you know, this is something that goes beyond partisan politics. this is something that goes to some very critical and clock is ticking issues that are coming or this country could face devastating results, including perhaps another downgrade on their credit rating. that is probably what they will discuss. >> billy house writes for the national journal. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> white house press secretary
jay carney repeated the positions on matters of budget cuts regarding the fiscal cliff. during this briefing, news also broke that cia director david petraeus had resigned due to an extramarital affair. surely after this, president obama released a statement accepting his resignation. this briefing is just under one hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome back to the white house briefing room. it is a pleasure to be back. we have not done this too often of late since we have all been traveling. i want to thank all of you who traveled with us over these past several weeks and months. i know that sometimes grueling.
it was certainly part of a remarkable process. just a reminder of the greatness of the country in which we live. before i take your questions, let me give you this announcement. next thursday, the president will travel to new york to the recovery efforts, meet with affected families and local officials, and the brave first responders that have worked tirelessly to protect communities following hurricane sandy. more details about the trip will be announced when they are available. the new york area. earlier today, the president convened a call with homeland security secretary napolitano, the fema administrator, the chief of staff, the deputy assistant to the president for homeland security richard reid, and other senior members of his team. he received an update on the
latest response efforts in the affected area. he also heard from napolitano on the latest efforts to meet the continuing power and fuel challenges facing affected communities as well as ongoing work in support of governors and their teams to develop long-term housing solutions for the affected families. administrator few gate is meeting with local officials as well as surveying damage and ongoing response and recovery efforts. the president directed his team to continue to bring all available resources to bear to support our state and local partners and to not allow red tape or bureaucracy to stand in the way of federal support that can be provided. the president will continue to receive updates from his team. and with that i will take your questions >> thanks, and welcome to the lame duck session. we just heard the president say essentially the deficit
reduction plan, as what are his compromise. he also insists on raising taxes for the threshold. he ran on a ballot to increase the taxes to the bill clinton era tax rates. that means 35% for the top rate. is that the president's position now, and would he veto any package that comes back from congress that does not do that? >> the president will veto any bill that extends the bush era tax cuts for the top 2% of wage earners in this country. what the president made clear again today and has said for quite some time is that he would sign right now the bill that passed the senate that extends tax cuts for 90% of us.
this is a simple and easy way to address a large part of the uncertainty created by the so- called fiscal cliff. it for those who did not engage in beltway parlance, but a series of deadlines that include expiration of these tax cuts that would cause uncertainty and damage to the economy if they're not dealt with. extending those tax cuts for 98% of the american people would deal with more than half, in dollar terms, of the impact caused by the fiscal cliff. it there are other challenges we would need to address, including the sequester, but congress ought to, the house ought to pass those tax cuts right away. it would send a tremendous positive signal to the american people that in the wake of this
election, we can at the very least come together and convert into law a bill that everyone agrees should become law, republicans and democrats alike, the present included. and we will then continue to work on those issues where we have broader disagreement. that is why the president has invited leaders to the white house next week. that is why he will be meeting with business leaders and labor leaders and others to get their input and ideas about how to move forward. he has his own very specific plan that reduces the deficit by four trillion dollars, which does it and it does a balanced way. insurers we can continue to invest in education and infrastructure and research and development, the elements so key to sustained economic growth. it but he is not wedded to every detail of that plan. he understands the message of the election is that american people want action, not
political posturing and argument. ithey want action and there really is in the bill that passed the senate an opportunity to do some very good work for the american people, very good work for the american economy right away to send a signal that cooperation and compromise is possible. >> speaker boehner has made it clear even though he said that he would put revenue on the table that he would not increase rates. so does the president believe that you can achieve the revenue goals that he wants and increase the effective rate of what wealthy americans are paying without necessarily increasing the marginal rate? twoet's be clear about things. all of the bush tax cuts are expiring on january 1. it's important that the american people understand that. if congress does not act everyone's taxes go up, everyone's.
to avoid that, the house needs to pass the bill that the senate already passed so that 98% of the american people will not have their taxes go up. separate from that the president has long endorsed and supported the idea of reforming our tax code. in fact, in his speech on tuesday night he said in the coming weeks and months i'm looking forward to working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together, reducing our deficit reforming our tax code and freeing ourselves from foreign oil. that has long been a principle he supports. he has put forward ideas that would drive tax reform, including the buffet rule and limiting deductions for wealthier earners. so that is a conversation that needs to take place but we need to address some of these
challenge that is confront us right away. and one way to do that is to pass the tax cuts for 98% of the american people. what i haven't heard is a plausible argument for why we shouldn't do that. republicans support these tax cuts democrats support the tax cuts and the president supports these tax cuts. so let's get them done, extend them. it would be an excellent signal for the american people that we in washington can come together and take action in a manner that the american people support. >> a couple of questions. what is the thinking behind the president going to southeast asia at such a critical i'm. is there a risk of missing an important time frame to make an agreement. >> well the president will be meeting with members of congress before his trip.
that'm absolutely certain the work that is begun there will continue while he is traveling t. president's trip to asia will be an opportunity to build on our efforts to refocus on the asia pacific as the most rapidly glowing region in the world. and he will focus on expanded trade and ties in the region and working through regional institutions to make sure that nations abide by the rules of the road. you know as part of his broad ere agenda the president has focused on expanding our presence in asia. the positive economic impact of doing that will be felt for years to come and is element al to the kind of growth this president cease for the economy in the 21st century. this is important work that needs to be done.
there are meetings that he'll participate in and that's something that he looks forward to. >> the second question will he have to agree to stay on through the fiscal cliff negotiations and until they are completed? >> the secretary geithner has indicated he will stay on through inauguration and he will be a key part pant in the negotiations around the fiscal cliff issues so the president very much appreciates that. >> there are reports that general is coming to the white house to talk ability his future. can you she had any light on whether he might be moving on in fact? >> i don't have any
announcements to make on personnel matters. i would address that question to the c.i.a. and d.n.i. - >> is he coming to the white house? >> i don't know. >> senator proposed one solution to the fiscal cliff challenge is closing the loopholes as they apply to the highest income earners without changing rates? would this meet the president's test? >> the president has made clear that the only acceptable approach to dealing with our fiscal challenges and the only approach that allows us to continue to invest in areas of our economy is to take a balanced approach, to make sure that in addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts, in addition to doing more on the spending side, in addition to doing more to reform our entitlement programs, we have to include revenue. the president made clear every day asking the wealthiest to
pay a little bit more. the president in his own specific proposals has put forward measure that is include reforms to our tax code like the buffet rule and limiting deductions for higher earners. so that would be part of the conversation. but when i comes to the bush tax cuts if a bill were to arrive on his desk, he would not sign it. >> letting the bush era tax rates expire is a powerful mechanism the president could use to get his way. does the president share that view? >> the president said as he said it is paramount that we not allow taxes to go up on everyone on january 1. and that's what will happen if the house does not follow the
senate's lead and pass the extension of tax cuts for 98% of the american people. there is no rational argument that i have heard and that i think any american out there would think is rational behind the idea that we should make everyone's taxes go up just so that millionaires and billionaires and those making over 250,000 get a tax cut - that's not rational thinking or something we can afford. >> does the president have full faith and confidence in general -- >> he thinks he's done an excellent job. >> stay on in his current position? >> he believes he has done an excellent job but i don't have any personnel announcements to make from here today. >> do you plan on changing that or is this how it's going to be
in the second term? clearly not. >> look the president will be taking your question in the near future. the president answered questions of many, many reporters including from your news organization. i think he gave an interview to the leader of nbc news, brian williams just days ago. he will be taking questions from the white house press corp i can assure you. the president was out there campaigning for reelection and giving interviews daily to reporters from your news organization, from news organizations across the country, from regional newspapers and television stations and answered a lot of
-- >> by the head of your decision and others, the anchor of the world news tonight. so he will continue to give interviews and very soon i'm sure looks forward to taking questions from the white house press core. >> the office issued a report looking at the fiscal cliff and if all the bush tax cuts were extended it would create 1.8 million jobs but the ones for wealthier americans were allowed to expire it would create 1.6 million jobs. that's is a lot of jobs. at a time when the president is talking about jobs are the most important issue. what are we to make of those 200,000 jobs. >> the president has put forth something to create more than those 200,000. we have been making a point for so long which is the economic
benefit of tax cuts to the wealthiest earners is very very small, minimal in comparison to the economic benefit that comes from extended tax cuts to 98% of earners in fact. and i think that's what that report reflects. >> it reflects 200,000 jobs wouldn't be created. >> but the president's proposals including the measures the president talked about in his convention speech far more jobs than that and we can do that by taking a balanced approach so the assets we have available to us do not flow to the top 2% of wage earners but go to investments in infrastructure and clean energy and other. >> i'm not talking about whether or not the president gets his jobs bill passed i'm
talking about the fiscal cliff and you're not disputing the assertion that 200,000 fewer jobs will be created if the president gets his way. it's not small to 200,000 families. >> the president said we can we can't afford to extend tax breaks to the wealthiest 2%. we have to reduce our deficit which savings from not extending those tax cuts would go toward. you have to look at the president's overall package which would create more jobs than extending the tax cuts because the c.b.o. shows that tax cuts to the top 2% of american earners is a
highly inefficient way of helping our economy, it just not have the economic impact that giving tax cuts to the middle class does. and that's been a president that's been the president's approach all along. >> at what point does the white house plan on providing the president's whereabouts on the night of september 11, 201. >> as you know the incident in benghazi, the attack on our diplomatic facility has been under investigation by the f.b.i. it is part of a broader investigation by the accountability review board set up at the president's direction by the secretary of state. no one is more interested in getting to the bottom of what happened than the president is. no one is more interested in bringing to justice those who took the lives of four americans
than the president and he is very interested in having the results of those investigations provided to him and the american public. >> none of that is going to talk about the? >> the president has been forth right about when he found out about it that he directed actions be taken immediately to provide support for our embassy facilities not just in benghazi but in tripoli and around the world and every action he's taken was driven by -- >> there was a 5:00 meeting but what about after that? >> the president was made aware of developments throughout the evening and days ensuing so i'm not sure what you're question is. >> there were all \[indiscernible] - >> when you talk about military we've been answering
questions and we'll have more information to provide about the military's response to the president's direction to. this i think we've answered questions in refuting incorrect and poorly reported allegations about their activities and response to that tragic events and we'll continue to oh do that. nobody is more interested than this president to find out exactly what happened and bring to justice those who killed four americans and take measures to ensure that never happens again. that is not at all what i said. >> when are we going to get one? >> i don't have a date certain for you but we will continue to provide you. >> i'm not sure the investigation looks at our overall response to what happened and the accountability review board looks at our deposit mat i can security issues and what posture we need
to take with regard to our facilities there. >> \[indiscernible] >> i think a lot of information has been provided by our intelligence community by the defense department that has been responsive to questions about this and we'll continue to provide information about. this i think one inescapable fact about this is we have endeavored to provide as much information as we could to do in response to your questions and as some information has come to light that further clarifies what happened we provide that to you as well. >> decades when a president is re-elected comes out within a day or two or three and does a press conference. why did he decide to break with that tradition and give a speech and not take questions? >> the president will be taking your questions i'm sure in the near future. he looks forward to it. he gave a statement today which
addresses some very important issue that is we in washington have to take action on in the very near future. the's why he's invited leaders of congress to the white house and he'll be meeting with leaders of the business and labor and civic leaders to talk about the actions that we need to take to ensure we grow our economy and put people back to work. jobs and economic growth have long been the president's number one priority. they are clearly as we saw in the election earlier this week the people's number one priority and that's why we have to take action right away. he is doing that as e he made clear in his remarks today. in terms of engaging with the press i can assure you he'll be doing that in short order. >> when it comes to the fiscal cliff is he willing to let all the bush tax cuts expire if he can't get a deal on the tax cuts for the wealthiest america?
how can you be sure americans will blame republicans. >> the american people want and expect action. it isn't about blame. the question you're asking has to be asked to congress. the president can't pass a law through the house. a lass has passed that extends tax cuts for 98% of the american people. everyone who makes under $250,000. 97% of small businesses, the president made clear today he would sign that law tomorrow if the house were to pass it and it makes all the sense for the world for the house to do that. what is the argument for not passing it? forcee're going to everyone to have a higher tax bill next year just because millionaires and billionaires didn't get a tax cut? that's a nonsensical argument and it is certainly not what
the american people believe should be done in washington as i think has been demonstrated and we need to take on a number of issues including tax reform. but one thing we can do right away is send a signal to the american people that washington is working and the two sides can come together and takes actions on tax cuts that everyone supports, tax cuts that have already passed the senate and members of the house of both parties say they support. so let's get that done and don't do the work the president talked about today. >> the other part of the fiscal cliff are these spending cuts. what do you think should happen there because president obama said we are not going over the cliff so what is the alternative? >> that is part of what the president talked about today in terms of engaging with leaders
in congress. we have a number of issues, two baskets that tax and revenue issues and then the sequester issues and we need to get to work to resolve them. >> what are the options? >> i think the president put together a clear plan and he talked about it today. his propose toll cut spending by $4 trillion addresses the spending cuts called for the in the budget control act that led to the sequester and there are ways to do this as we've all discussed and that you've covered for months and months now as we've had these debates about how we address our fiscal challenges t. president's principle is we have to take a balanced approach. we have to do more when it comes to reducing spending including reforming our entitlements in a way that strengthens medicare. we have to ask the wealthiest to pay more. revenues have to be part of this equation and that's a
position that isn't just the president's position or democrats. it's a position shared by some elected republicans and it's a position supported by majority of the american people not just democrats, it's a position endorsed by independent bipartisan commissions. it's a position that independent economist endorse. and i think when speaker boehner and others have talked about when revenue is on the table, i think that is a sign that the president appreciates that we need to compromise here and come together and take a balanced approach. >> what can you tell us about secretary clinton's future? she has said something about wanting to move on after a first term, any word on her replacement? >> i have no personnel announcements to make of any kind. and yes secretary clinton spoke to this and i would point you to her statements. the president is greatly
appreciative of her service as secretary of state and thinks she has been a remarkable secretary of state. but i will leave it to her to address her future. >> i want to thank you for mentioning brian williams and all the people that interviewed the president. fox would like to be added to that list. on benghazi jake asked you about the president and what he will say in terms of a time line. next week there are three different congressional committees reviewing the matter. you said that the white house wants to cooperate. so there has been no precedent for presidents to go testify on capitol hill. is the president willing to end up secretary clinton? >> i can tell you we are cooperating with congress in these hearings and will
continue to cooperate. we've been cooperative with the investigations and will continue to be. i don't have specifics about who is going up to talk to the congressional committees looking at this but i may be able to get more details for you. but we have been and will continue to cooperate on this issue. >> on the issue of transparency in news conferences, i want to make note you have been helpful in trying to work through the differences we had on access. but i looked up and saw this morning this video of the president talking to his campaign aids and he got emotional. and went back and on wednesdays that was a closed press event where tv networks and newspapers were closed it was a closed campaign event. it was taped and decided to release it. what's the thinking if it's a closed event for his campaign to film it and release it but why wouldn't you let our cameras
in? >> it was a meeting with his campaign team that had worked very hard over many weeks and months and the campaign released that video which i think was perfectly appropriate and fine. it wasn't a media event or press event. it was a meeting with his campaign team. and he talked not about benghazi or the fiscal cliff but he spoke from his heart about how much he appreciated the young people especially in that office who had worked so hard to on that campaign and how in his eyes those young people represented a promise about america's future that is very inspiring. and i don't think that this was -- >> given the great interest of
the election and mms of people participating, wouldn't the press want to be in for these remarks? >> i'm happy to take questions a lot about the white house press core, we can do that as much as you like. but i think what the president was doing was having a meeting with the very young members of his campaign team who worked their hearts out and he was just thanking them and the campaign released avid owe in which he thanked them. >> you said the president wants to sign the extension of the bush tax cuts and do tax reform. how can you do both? you're messing with the tax code. you can't do tax reform and make permanent something that is for 98%. so are you saying you want tax reform for the top 2%? >> i don't think they are separate issues at all. we have a deadline and that
deadline is all of these tax cuts will expire on january 1. everyone's taxes go up on january 1 unless congress takes action. we can ensure that taxes on 98% of the american people do not go up on january 1 if the house simply passes a bill that's passed the senate and the president made clear he would sign that bill immediately. and what is significant about that -- >> it's a permanent extension? >> i believe it's a temporary extension. >> how do you do tax reform? >> by sitting down with members of both parties in congress and working out a kind of tax -- the need for me re forming our tax code is something the president has talked about frequently and >> because we can't afford it and the president will not do it. if a bill were to reach his
desk that extends tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% he will not sign it. >> for any amount of time? >> he will not sign it. we cannot afford it. the president hasn't been hiding the ball on this. he spoke about this every day. it was part of his speech and interviews he gave and it's a principle that he believes is very important which we need to give tax cuts to 98% of the american people because it's right for the families and it's right for the economy. this is the point i wanted to make because i don't want to the extent that there are a handful of people or more out there who are watching this who aren't familiar with the fiscal cliff and tax cut dead lines. we're talking about a measure that would give tax cuts to the 98% of the people. tax cuts that everyone supports. i can't find anyone who doesn't support giving tax cuts to the middle class.
so let's pass it and sign it into law, get it done and then continue to work on the other challenge that is face us. >> the report also said if everything goes over the so- called fiscal cliff, while it would be recession for 2013, actually the economy will start coming along by 2018, so is there a real penalty for going over the cliff? >> absolutely. we need to take action to avoid that and that's why it's so important the american people and the american economy -- >> long term this would be good for the american economy, 5.5% unemployment by 2018. by 2018 long-term solvency. >> that's not the approach we should take or need to take to bring about the discipline to bring about economic growth and job creation.
that's why balance is so important. that's why the president has been fighting for a balanced plan for so long. his plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion and does it in a way to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and long-term growth and makes sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order. and that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy and it's also the problem with arbitrarily cut spending for in a way that the sequester does because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. this is something that can be addressed in a smart way and that's the balanced approach the president put forward.
>> i know without going into every part of his plan, does that mean he would be open to structural changes in social security and medicare which is what boehner said have to be on the table, potentially racing the age? >> we can and address social security to make it stronger. but it is also the case it has not been and continues not to be an immediate threat -- it is not the creation or problem behind our deficit debt at the time. the president's plan -- first of all i won't negotiate the details of compromise the president hopes to reach --
>> the president's position here has been clear this is something we can and should addressed in a way that strengthens the program but we need to address non-defense discretionary spending, revenue swerlts healthcare programs like medicare and medicaid. >> speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell said they have to have that on the able. >> they will be meeting next week. >> human rights groups have objected to the president's upcoming trips saying that the democratic reforms taking place in burma haven't gone far enough and or also that the ones in cambodia may be backsliding. how do you avoid the perception that the president has put a samp of approval on these governments. >> well in burma the president will use that visit to press for improvements in the relationship between the united states and burma. there has been extraordinary
progress made since last year but much more work needs to be done to advance democratic change. supporting democracy and human right social security a fundamental principle behind the president's policy in the region and the world and he will carry that message on this trip >> \[indiscernible] >> i think this is historic and important but it will be clear his message will be to recognize the progress that's been made but there is more work that needs to be done. >> you said the new secretary is going to be a key part pant in these discussions so if he committed to staying on until the end of the negotiations? >> he's committed to staying on through the inauguration. i don't have a specific day he
will depart and i don't want to speak hypothetically about how long negotiations about our budget issues will take. i mean i think there is an opportunity for them to move quickly. >> but if they don't happen january 20, he would leave in the middle? >> that's a hypothetical i can't address. i'll let the general address this and i'm sure that we'll have something from the president later. >> in terms of what the president considers a balanced approach, if the rates stay the same but the revenue lost between the bush era rates and the clinton era rates is made up word for closing loopholes for top earners, doesn't that mean the wealthy pay more? >> you and chuck get the same answer i'm not going to
negotiate meetings that haven't taken plause but the president is clear he will not sign a bill into law that extend upper income tax cuts from the bush era. two as he said in his speech on tuesday night in chicago and has been clear all along he is committed to reforming the tax code. he has put forward principle that is include the buffet principle and reducing deduction that is wealthiest americans can take. so i don't want to get into the details of how that works. what he will not do is sign an extension of the bush era tax cuts. >> even fits pared with closing deductions and closing loopholes for the top earners sm >> i'm
not going to negotiate the details. what i will say is that he will not sign an extension of the bush era tax cuts for the top 2% and he has put forward principles to reform ling our tax code. he is committed to do that and he recognizes there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions and we've put that in our own plans. but i don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work or others that don't. but the president's principles are clear. we have to have balance. he will continue to insist that the house pass tax cuts for 98%
of the american people that make less than $250,000 a year. tax cuts that everyone supports. that that will address a chunk, more than half of the so-called fiscal cliff. and then he will work with members of congress to address these other issues including the sequester and tax reform. >> temperature said he was invited leaders here, is that scheduled for next week? >> i don't have any specific scheduling updates for you but when we have more information we'll let you know. >> what comfort does the president give allies that his administration will be able to reach some of a deal to prevent the u.s. and europe from going into another recession? >> obviously europe is dealing with their own challenges. we are connected and europe is our largest trading partner. i would point you simply to what the president said today which is that he appreciates what the speaker of the house
has said this week that suggests a willing tons compromise. the president has made clear that he is willing to compromise. he thinks one of the clearest messages that the american people sent on tuesday was they want action and they don't want compromise to be a dirty word in washington. that we need to come together to deal with the challenge that is confront us that can only be resolved in a bipartisan manner when we have a government that continues to be divided. the president is confident we can do it if there is a willingness to approach this in a balanced way and compromise. and thus far he is hopeful that others in washington are taking that approach. >> will he be reaching out to any of the european leaders? >> he is in regular
communication with leaders in europe. but i don't have any conversations to preview for you. >> what's the first step on immigration reform which the president said was a top 3r50eur79? >> it was one of the four things the president mentioned on tuesday night. i don't have any meetings or steps to preview for you but it is something that we have to get done. >> the other party who he seize is a good partner to work with? >> there should be in the future because the way to address this issue is in a comprehensive approach. there has been bipartisan support for that approach in the past and the president is hopeful there will be in the veneer future.
>> does he view it as incumbent upon him to do something proactive on this issue? >> the president is and will be engaged thon issue and i think what is obvious for students of washington is that this is something that can only be done in a bipartisan way. the president was able to address a component of this but whether it's the dream act or comprehensive immigration reform, these are matters that have to be dealt with by congress in a bipartisan way. but you can be assured the president will be pushing congress to get something done. >> [indiscernible] >> i can tell you will have something from the president on it today. >> the general c.i.a. director
resigned over an extramarital affair. can you tell us about this? >> any information on this i would ask you to await for something from the c.i.a. i will tell you the president will address this with a statement later. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't have any details to give to you. >> that he was open the health savings in the repeated that today, a campaign were the only thing he said about medicare was protecting it, has he done anything to prepare the american people for cuts to health care programs? and if he ruling out cuts that affect beneficiaries directly as opposed -- >> this is what we have learned
about the budget debates that we have had over the past several months and years. that is that you can get savings out of our health care programs that strengthen those programs. that is what the president did in the affordable care act. you can continue to take measures that strength in those programs that do not harm beneficiaries. you certainly do not need to voucher medicare. i know you didn't, but that is what was on the table. the point the president was making was that we should not be asking our seniors to pony up while we are giving tax cuts to corporations. >> are you ruling out cuts that directly affect beneficiaries? >> despite a lot of
mischaracterization got it, yes. the president has already brought about significant savings in our health care programs that have extended the life of medicare in a way that assures benefits for medicare recipients. he believes there are more measures that we can take that will do that. we do not have to do something radical along the lines of what had been proposed as long as we're willing to take a balanced approach. the president supports the balanced approach, not an unbalanced approach that would demand voucherizing medicare do significant harm to our seniors. >> they made clear that he was willing to brraise the age.
that does affect the beneficiaries. >> i will not get into our review of the past. the president has committed to working in a bipartisan way. he has a balanced plan that is specific. it allows us to help us grow. and it has to include asking the wealthiest to pale little bit more. but he is not related every detail of his plan. that is why he is leading with others. i am not going to preview and draw redlines from here today. >> the president reaching out to governor romney, he said he wanted to meet with them. >> i do not have an update on that for you. the president is interested in
having a meeting, but i do not have an update for you. >> [indiscernible] >> what i can tell you is that the department of justice has said that they are reviewing those ballot initiatives and i will direct you to them for updates. >> [inaudible] there was also a discussion on if the president would be interested in having a cabinet. can you talk about that? >> again, i have no statements to make about personnel matters. i can simply say, as you know, the president and the governor are good friends.
they have meals frequently over the past several years, what i was fortunate enough to participate in, i am sure they're looking forward to catching up. have any moret information about that. >> he thinks the debt limit should be -- >> i will not get into specifics about what the congressional leaders and the president will be discussing next week. what the negotiations going forward will look like. we have some deadlines that we have to contend with. deadline of december 31 for taxes and spending and we have to deal with those issues. if congress doesn't act and the house does not pass the senate
bill that gives tax cuts to the american people, everybody's taxes go up on january 1. that will be a rude awakening for the american people if it comes to pass. it should not and must not because everyone supports keeping those tax cuts in place for 98% of the american people. in terms of other elements of a bigger conversation look like, i will not go forward with that. that is not something i have a specific date on. perhaps the treasury does. the deadline precedes that, and it is december 31 for tax cuts for 98% of the american people. it will be very hard to explain for congress and the house in particular that they did not extend tax cuts for middle-class americans because they insisted
on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. i think republicans and democrats alike extend these tax cuts for 98% of the american people. we believe that is a quick and easy step that the house can take and congress can take to help address some of these challenges right away. i knew i would forget. on sunday, president obama and mrs. obama will participate in veterans day activities at arlington national cemetery. on monday, there are no public events in observance of veterans day. on tuesday, the president will attend meetings, wednesday will be a press conference in the east room. how about that? you are all invited. [laughter] [talking over eadcch
other] i don't have the time for you, i think it will be paid time. -- daytime. >> it is about modern family. >> you just want to come back from vacation. on thursday, the president will travel to the new york city area to view the storm damage, talk with citizens recovering for the storm and sank the first responders that put their lives at risk. the president will meet on friday with leaders of both sides as previously mentioned at the white house to discuss the actions -- >> that is the first meeting? that is congressional leaders? >> i have no other meeting to announce at that time. i can tell you the congressional leaders meeting will be on friday to discuss the action we need to take to keep the economy growing and reduce our deficit. thank you very much.
yes, thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] guest: david petraeus said in a statement that he had shown extremely poor judgment in having the affair. president obama said that david has provided extraordinary service to the united states for decades. by any measure, he was one of the outstanding general officers of his generation. today, i accepted his resignation as director of the federal intelligence agency. i am confident the cia will continue to carry out its essential mission and i have the utmost confidence in the acting director. and the men and women that work every day to keep our nation safe. the president also said his thoughts and prayers are with the family during this difficult time.
months, and he ended up injuring himself -- entering himself into a facility where they use acupuncture, meditation, and other techniques to ween them off of drugs. he was able to walk out on his own 2 feet. i commend the military virtues allow us choosing to to tell the story, the good and the bad. and for recognizing this problem of over medication. and thinking out of the box to fix it. that is the thesis of its own, the metaphor of the status quo not working. >> more with the producer and director of escape fire, the
fight to rescue health care. on c-span's q&a. >> of voter turnout was down from 2008 were both republicans and democrats in every state except for iowa, louisiana, and the district of columbia. they discuss the changing demographics that one president obama a second term. this is about an hour-and-a- half. >> ok, folks. why don't we go ahead and start? we are live on c-span3 this morning so everyone should behave, especially the panelists. my name is dan glickman. i am a senior fellow here. my colleague john fortier will introduce the panelists but i will ask the 10 questions about this election and not in any particular order or with priority. these were the questions that
relate to both the congressional and presidential races. was a case of good democratic candidate, bad republican candidate, or the message? two. why was there no similar shellacking of republicans in the house races? outside spending on races set records but it did not seem to make much of a difference in the outcomes. was it all the waste of money? was this a status quo election? is there something more profound going on? was there and the mandate for
anything coming out of this election? if there was or was not, what was the main message from the people in this country? if the country is split as the pundits say, income, gender, grumpy old men, class, income, or rural versus urban as you look at the map. are the demographic trends and changes reflect a revolutionary change in american politics? ron paul says the election shows the u.s. is now far gone. are we really seeing a strong resurgence of participatory democracy with a whole litany of new participants? finally, number 10. for our fiscal cliff and monumental decisions affecting
the debt, deficit, sequestration, taxes, and everything else. what in the results put us closer to its solution? given those 10 questions, i turned it over to my distinguished colleague, john fortier. >> now we are going to quiz the panelists on those questions. i am going to introduce the panelists. each of us will give a take on what we think about the election. i am going to keep the biographies brief. these are very accomplished people. ron brownstein is the editorial director of "national journal" for many years and has covered political campaigns for a long time and is one of our premier commentators on politics. curtis gans is the director for
the center for the study of the american electorate, the nation's leading expert on voter turnout. we have a recently released report from the bipartisan policy center. curtis will tell you about turnout on the local and national level. kristen soltis anderson is vice president at the winston group and an analyst on several networks on political matters. david wasserman is the house added there of the "cook political report." he probably has his finger on house prices more than anyone else here in washington. i am going to say a few words. we will have some discussion and then go to the audience. it was a close election. we kept saying that. the president wins.
it was relatively close. there were some gains in congress for the president's party. some surprising ones in the senate and a few in the house. in many ways, it looks a lot like 2004 where president bush was reelected and gained a few seats in both houses. a relatively close election. all of the votes are not in yet. i think by the time we report all the votes, the president's margin is going to grow and i think we will end up with a margin between obama and romney of about 3.5%. not as close as what we have been talking about for a good deal of the election. i know a lot of people have talked about nate silver and people modeling polls. i am a political scientist and sometimes critical of some of
their models. they tried to predict what happens in the elections. they try to have some simple components. how we have been improving over the year. you can say that even a little bit of growth matters. a president who was in the middle for much of this year and about a 1.5% growth. you probably get a winner of 3% and that is what many of the models look like. many thought the economy was so bad. what is one thing that was really wrong about our analysis of the election? i am going to take a focus on
ohio. people thought when ohio is called, that is when we knew president obama was president. there was an interesting line that went on for a while. the polls look much better for mitt romney on the national level. before the hurricane, mitt romney had a lead in the national polls. maybe the president moved ohio. ohio which is usually a bit of a republican state but seemed to be a democratic state. if you look at what is likely to end up the final results, certainly the president won ohio maybe 2.5 percentage point at the end of the day. ohio did not really look so different relative to the nation that it usually does. it was a little bit republican
again. my boulder claim was going to be maybe this auto bailout story was not true at all. i think it is overblown. if you look at ohio, there were three groups were obama improved his status or he did not lose as much. yes, there were some counties where the auto bailout seemed to help. they performed a little bit better for obama relative than other county's. i doubt some of the exit polls they could be this high. african americans in ohio in 2004 were at 15% of the electorate. there was a large african american turnout. there was also a large white turnout where parts of the obama coalition came out. the auto bailout did not
fundamentally change ohio. there were some things that went in both directions. what happened in the state legislatures? you can see some big wave elections like in 2010. the early numbers saw a move in the democratic direction. if you look at the blue states, there was some movement in the democrat direction but there was also some moves in the republican direction. republicans picked up legislature in arkansas, west virginia, alaska. both parts of the country pushing in different directions.
i think the election is also something of a deepening of polarization. 1993 or 1992, there were 19 democrats who helped republican seats. that number has been declining and declining. there were also some republicans who used to hold seats for democrats for president. before this election, we were down to nine democrats and two republicans who met that definition. in a way, the realignment continues. republicans are sitting in republican seats even though the numbers did not change
dramatically in the house. there is a lot of talk about demographics and i am sure we are going to hear that on the panel. i think it is important to look and see in some ways the president and the democratic party have moved to have a greater share of liberals be a part of their base. their numbers from 2004 and 2008. conservatives are still a larger number. i had a reporter called me this week talking about us as a center-right country. i think we have moved some. the democrat party has a larger of its base in liberals. i do think that the demographics make a difference but part of that change is the democrats have a larger number of liberals in their coalition.
i am going to stop there and turn to ron. >> there is no question this election will be seen as a milestone. not even so much politically and culturally. it was a moment where everyone realized this is not the same place we used to be. the single most telling fact about this election is mitt romney brand as well among white voters as in the republican challenger ever in the history of polling. 56% in 1980, 59% in 1988, and 60% in 1952. that was sufficient to win a landslide election. in this case, mitt romney won
59% of white voters and lost. but not the competitive in the electoral college in the end. a terrific political scientist told me for the majority of history white majorities have ruled. in 2008, president obama lost whites by double digits and won. in this election, he lost them by 20 points and won because democrat republicans are conceding once again in this election 80% of the growing minority population. if he matched that again and they were at least that much of the vote, he could get a majority of the national vote with only about 40% of whites.
80, 39, 28. the fundamental fallacy that many conservative analysts had was the assumption that 2008 was the result of some surge because of barack obama. it was a continuation of the trend line. we have gone from 91% to 72% over that time. it has tracked the change in the eligible voter population. the demography offers no respite from the republican party. i think you'll see a big debate inside the gop about how they deal with this changing america. very quietly and somewhat
obscured by the times election of 2000, democrats have now won the popular vote in the last five elections. when i was first covering politics, that was the phrase. republicans had a lock. the shoe is now complete on the other foot. there are 18 states that have voted democratic in every state in every election since 1992. that is the most states they have one that often ever. those 18 states, only three of them were contested at all in this election. pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin. obama was able to win all of them. until republicans can breach
that blue wall. what you saw in this election, on the one hand, the evolution of the coalition in terms of democrats understanding who they are and who they represent, but also the ability to transcend that. the real story of this election is -- it is ironic. in many ways, this is the triumph 40 years later of the coalition invasion of young people, minorities, and socially liberal white voters. barack obama won only 36% nationally of white college
voters who were the foundation of the coalition from the 1930's to the 1960's. 80% of minorities and 42% of college educated white voters. what he was able to do was to transcend that coalition in those red states. obama was able to put together very distinctive coalitions in the two bands of swing states. there are now two bands of swing states. we have had a series of state come into play. in the southeast. in the southwest. he relied on this new coalition. he had miserable numbers among working-class whites. he was able to win in of young people, minorities, and college educated whites as well as women. in the rust belt, he performed much better, around 50% among women in ohio and wisconsin. i believe it is largely
cultural presidents of the bain attack in a region that gets the story. he was able to put together two coalitions. his share of the vote declined in 45 of 50 states. he is the first president since andrew jackson to be reelected to have a smaller share of the vote than when he won. at this point, he is tied with george w. bush for the narrowest margin of victory ever for is successfully reelected president. we are a very divided country. demography gives democrats an opportunity to build a majority coalition. they have won the popular vote five out of six presidential
elections. it is a real challenge in executing the opportunity that the demographic change provides. the campaign showed the weakness of both sides. republicans are unable to win 20% of minorities. both parties are looking at structural challenges in who they speak to. the chance that obama had to build a robust coalition was not realized, but demography still gives democrats an edge on the presidential level. >> i've focused very heavily on young voters. it has been my personal crusade to figure out how the right can win more young voters back onto our site.
in 2008, it was an historic election. barack obama won young voters by 34 points. ronald reagan won young voters by 19 points. i would often hear back from my colleagues to do things that were missed. the first is that young voters do not turn out. there are not that many voters. i think this election has busted that myth. turnout was down overall but young voters went from 18% to 19% of the electorate. this said they were less enthusiastic and lost faith in the president, but they still turned out. the other myth is if you are 20 and you are conservative, you have no heart. but if you are 40 and liberal,
you have no brain. when they buy a house and start paying taxes, they will all become conservative. political science says that is not the case. an interesting study shows you were more likely to be republican today than those who were in the older or younger cohorts. in this election, good news or bad news for the republican party? republicans lost. among young voters, barack obama performed worst among young voters relative to his performance in 2008 than any other voter group. he fell off among every age
group except for one. this is what republicans ought to be concerning. barack obama improved his performance among 30-somethings. why is that the case? it is my belief that this is the sort of oldest tongue of the millennials. they stuck with the president. it is important to recognize for republicans that it is still unsustainable. that is one major point that i hope my republican colleagues will take away from the selection. you cannot separate out -- the increase in young voters
when you look at the exit polls and how they are broken out by percentages, young white voters stayed. it was young latino voters that increased. republican performance among young voters will inevitably be linked to their ability to expand their attractiveness to latino voters. i don't think all is lost. eight years ago, george w. bush won 40% of latino voters. that is a really dramatic shift in eight years. i do not think it is irretrievable. if republicans can find a way to change the perception that they simply do not care about people outside their coalition is going to be the first critical step. mitt romney winds on the question who do you trust more.
he also wins on the economy about a plan for the future. the margin is enormous. if young people and voters outside the republican coalition think that republican policies that are not for them, we are going to have a long hard road trying to win elections in the future. >> i am so impressed because before i knew her, she was a lead singer for one of my favorite cover bands in d.c. i am blown away by her multi talents. there were three books vindicated by the election this week. the emerging democratic majority. "the big sort."
"coming apart." i would recommend all three of them. why the emerging democratic majority? the democratic coalition is growing, the republican coalition is shrinking. if you look at non-white voters, what is so striking to me is that non-white voters are sufficient to allow democrats to win statewide races increasing late. non-white voters are so clustered around the country that republicans have a built in advantage to win the house. it is not random that the presidency and the senate stayed in democrat control and the house state republican. between 1968 and 2008, the democrats controlled the congress and the house for 28
out of those 40 years. we basically had that symmetry. i think we could be moving to a new normal in the opposite direction where republicans have a natural advantage to control congress because of the concentration, and democrats have a natural advantage to win the electoral college. we will see exceptions to the roll over the next 40 years. this is the de facto outcome given the nature of the american electoral coalition these days. out of the 51% of voters who cast ballots for democrats, that was only sufficient to get about 200 out of 435 seats in the house. that is when you realize the deck is stacked against democrats and not just due to gerrymandering.
the results of redistricting this past week in a new report this week. highly educated white liberal voters. i really never thought democrats had a shot to win in the house. i was impressed they were able to pick up seven or eight seats. when you really delve into the big sort, president obama had a 1% problem that had nothing to do with personal pedigrees of mitt romney or barack obama. obama won his margin of victory in 2008 from 29 out of the other counties. that was the lowest number of counties and the president has
ever won an election with. he set a new record this week. the likely one less than 25 percent of america's counties while winning 332 electoral college votes which is absolutely amazing. out of the 473 counties with a cracker barrel, obama won just 29% of those counties. obama by contrast won 77 percent of counties with a whole foods market. i was doing my shtick before a group of professionals in arlington. a young woman said did you mean crate and barrel? i never heard of a cracker
barrel. i think that speaks to the mentality of the democratic base these days. that 48% gap between whole foods counties and cracker barrel counties, when you look at election results going back to 1992, it was 20% in 1992, 25% in 1996, 40% in 2004, 44% in 2008, 48% in 2012. i would venture to guess it will be over 50% in 2016. what is the moral of the story? culture and lifestyle are driving voting. as far as coming apart, i think we are coming apart in congress.
take a look at the changing demographics. it is a real pet peeve of mine when people say it is a status quo election. this is the first year in history where minorities and women will become a majority of the democratic caucus in the house. it is never going to go back to being a majority of white men ever again. white men were 53% of the democratic caucus. they will be 47% after the election. republicans have more than just a 47% time problem with respect to mitt romney. good dogs were cut in half in this election for the second straight time. they were cut from 56 down to 26 after 2010.
now it is going to be about 14 depending on the final result from north carolina. republicans are going in the opposite direction. 86 percent of republicans were white men in the house. they lost one latino. the lost one african american. they lost nine women -- six or seven women. their share of white men went up from 86% to 88%. there is that 41% gap. again, an absolute record. the tea party influence in the house i would argue went up. when we talk about this come to jesus moment that republicans are going to need to have to move to the middle to attract more latino voters, i do not see the incentive among house republicans because they are answering to increasingly white
districts that they have drawn for themselves. they have also drawn themselves into an electoral bubble, a total alternate universe from the one that democrats are living in. i do not see an incentive to compromise on these big ticket issues when they are faced with primaries down the road in 2014 if they are going to do anything to move toward additional revenue or any of the policies. a couple of the assumptions that we made that were wrong. we thought according to the gallup poll data that showed conservatives were up before the election and young voters were down 11 points, what happened with that? this shocked me on election night. some of the places where young voters dominated particularly in
places like virginia. all of these college towns. i was expecting the surge vote to go down a little bit. those cities turned out higher than they did in 2012. what about those angry conservatives that were fired up? take a look at a place like oklahoma for example. an energy state. the turn out there looks to be down more than 5%. a couple of wrong assumptions that we made. overall, this is a watershed election because we have 84 house freshmen. when you combine that with 82 surviving members from the class of 2010, 166 members, more than one-third of the house that will have less than three years of experience when congress takes office in january.
a huge new freshman class, a steep learning curve, and get ready for fireworks. >> many of you have the report and the bbc's report on voter turnout. >> the first thing i want to do is thank the bbc and dan and john for making this report possible. it would not have been done without them. i am usually the chicken little of the analyst industry on the issue of turnout, and this time i was the chicken little and it turned out to be right. the eligible citizen population increased by 8 million this year i think when all of the votes are counted. the numerical turnout will have gone down by 5 million and may
be even more. we will probably have about 126 million voting this time around. we went from 62.3% turnout of eligible citizens in 2008 we went from 62.3% turnout of eligible citizens in 2008 which was the highest since after women were given the right to vote in 1920. it was the highest since 1960. we are down this time i think to about 57.5% of eligibles. which is lower than 2008, lower than 2004, but slightly above 2000. across the country, only two states had a higher percentage turnout this election than in 20008.
they were iowa and louisiana. only six states had a higher numerical turnout than 2008. i will read the ones that were. delaware, iowa, north dakota, and wisconsin. only three of those were hotly contested states. there was a big break that the electoral college caused for us because essentially because of the electoral college will limit the number of state where we have campaigns. i added pennsylvania. 10 battleground state. the turnout was 62.8%. in the rest, turnout was 54.8%. if you adjust a little bit for a new york and new jersey have
been low turnout because of sandy, turnout in the state was 55.3%. what i don't want to talk about is demographic subgroups. andy and i are probably the only people in the world who do not use exit polls for judging the turnout for subgroups. i am silent until six or eight months from now when the census bureau comes out with its current population survey. that is 90,000 people and it is a much more reliable measure. when people say it turned out between 18% and 19% of african americans, that is too small of
a measure to make that claim. we no african americans turned out in substantial numbers. we know young people did not have the same drop-off as people predicted including me. i do not want to quantify that. i want to talk about something slightly different. our turnout increased beginning in 2000 through 2008. it increased in small amounts from 2000 to 2002. it increased substantially in 2004. for the midterm, it increased substantially in 2006.
two percentage points in 2008. by one percentage point in 2010 as opposed to 2006. now it is going down. the key central question is what is the reality of our future? is this a blip in an upward momentum? is this a restoration of the downward trend? i think two things speak to the resumption of the downward trend. the first is the states where there was no presidential campaign. i think that is a better judge of reality than the billions of dollars that were spent in the battleground states and the enormous activity that helped mobilize which you could not do nationally.
that is an artificial increase. if you look at registration statistics which is in this report, democratic registration this year went down in a little bit. two percentage points. republican registration held at the same level. democrats at 36% of the eligible vote. republican said at about 27%. registering for none of the above went through its 13th consecutive increase said that it is now in the panoply of partisan identification at 23%.
i think both of those things speak to a long term disengagement rather than a continuing rise. we will know a lot more in 2014 and 2016. my belief is 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 were driven by polarization that was deeply emotional. part of the decline this time i think was due a little bit to diminished hope. and therefore other things that influenced low and declining turnout will rise to the floor again. >> can you please not say the words 2016 and again? [laughter] let's take some time to talk and then turn to the audience. the polls.
people talked about the polls a lot. republicans complained they were understating their support. at the end of the day polls turned out to be understating the democrats support. i think they looked like obama was going to win a week before but we did not expect the margin. what was going on there? >> the polls were generally right. with some very big exceptions. the golden name in this was gallup. i think we are going to have to ask them to explain how they had that model. what was the electorate going to be? what was the white share and the non-white share going to be? the obama campaign manager projected early this year that it was going to rise from 26 to 28. virtually no poll ever all year anybody put it at that number. most would have it at 26. last year, many were 25 or 24.
i think republicans were in vision in that. in fact, it came in on the long- term track at 28. when we are going through this frenzy of the fall, projecting too many democrats. if you assume republicans would equal democrats or even exceed them, let me just point out that in modern times, republicans have equaled democrats in 2004 the only time ever in the president of election white or 77% of that electorate.
they were 78% of the electorate. a quick point. i felt some of these pollsters were acting more as therapists than pollsters. there were basically there to tell a fox audience that this was the america that they remembered, that nothing has changed. the long term trajectory is an unmistakable. i think that was the core issue in the polling. the white and the non-white percentage.
>> the challenge is that you can do a land line poll in the republican primary and he will probably hit it pretty close to right. it does not work for this electorate. young people do not have land lines, non-white, the folks that many pollsters were saying they were not going to turn out this time. a lot of pollsters were including cell phones in their samples but was it enough? what do we need to do to make sure we are reaching those people? >> dan green put out a paper on its last week saying that obama was going to win by 3.5 points. >> i agree with you on the demographic challenges for republicans.
they did come back some but i think some people expected it would come back more. they did in some very red states. what the republicans do this time? was it not enough compared to the demographics? >> i am surprised where they bounced back. one benefited from redistricting but in 2012 from those who voted straight ticket sunk him. we saw the democrats lose some seats in kentucky, western pennsylvania, white working class, blue-collar areas where democrats are having a hard time coming back.
in contrast, we saw the democrats surge in some parts of the country where republicans were not even anticipating there were as many democrats to come out and vote as there were. florida, for example. i think it is the poster child for places where republicans were not anticipating that this new latino population would come out and vote. the latino population had a very big effect as well. democrats won house positions in places like illinois, orlando, and even miami dade. the reason why obama was able to hang on to florida was because of non-cuban hispanics and miami dade.
>> i think republicans bounced back as well as they could. mitt romney won more than ronald reagan did in 1980. he did better among the college whites. obama dropped from 40 to 32. -- to 36. his margin drop by 80,000 votes since 2008. he had a lot of erosion. mitt romney had no serious plan for talking to nonwhite voters. i visited the campaign officials. they did not know the names of the hispanic outreach.
one senior romney advisers said to me, "this is the last time anyone will try to do this." it was almost entirely from the votes of whites. >> looking ahead, the republican party, anytime you lose, there is rethinking. i think people think the problem is more structural long terms. where is the republican party going? what will the debate to be? at the david is right. -- i think david is right.
we have a congress that is more tea party. what is the republican party looking like? the house has some younger candidates who interesting, like marco rubio. >> some are saying that we did not run a conservative enough candidate and others say that we went too far to the right. they blamed severely conservative positions that romney took. some are saying that we should go this way or that way. that is the wrong way to look at it.
both sides are wrong looking at it that way. i think it is a matter of, how can the things that you stand for help people? how can they help people to be better off? republicans were focused on the question of, "are you better off than four years ago?" we have anemic growth, but it is getting better. we're not losing half a million jobs every month. we started waited until september to get into it how to read you better off for years and now? we did not really get there. barack obama i gave an interview on mtv. he was asked, "a lot of entrepreneurs want to start their own business, including young latinos and african- americans. what would you do to help young entrepreneurs?" he said, "i have peeled back on financial regulations."
he talked about taking on financial regulations to start kickstarters. how would romney do it? it never got concrete enough. in that moment, he talked about applying a principle to reduce financial regulations to solve the problem. republicans were good at saying, "these are our principles," but not really saying how it would solve problems. >> there was a tweet that he would see "skyfall" this weekend with his wife and he was glad that it had nothing to do with politics whatsoever. i have a sneaking suspicion -- chris, i think you might as well
-- that i think we will talk about the inroads that republicans have made with latinos. they need to adapt in order to be competitive this year. looking at some of my chris christie down the road, republicans are going to have to face a fork in the road with a future presidential nominations between someone who is able to bridge back to the gap between partisan appeal on the tea party right and independent voters or someone who will be in the base.
as the republican coalition continues to contract, it will be more difficult for someone to overcome that divide in order to win a nomination and ticket to a general election. there are people in the republican party who probably can win both the primary and the general election. >> one more question for the panel and i will turn to the audience. the increase in liberal voters. they talk about a number of ways in which the democratic coalition might have legs and be growing. educated voters are leaning more toward democrats. that used to be the case for republicans. we saw marijuana legalization. the president's campaign talks
more openly about socialism. -- about social liberalism. is this a growing part of the democratic coalition? >> it is very different from what it used to be. before it was centered on blue colored lights. the stevenson in 1952 and carter in 1984, they run better among whites without a college education. gore ran four points better. obama better in 2008. college educated whites, especially women and minorities.
obama crossed the rubicon. it took a series of positions that democrats in the past have been reluctant to take. he mobilized his new coalition. you understand it would give them more headaches with older, blue-collar whites. he moved truth legalize the dream act for students. he accepted an incredibly polarized fight on contraception for the catholic church. this was a moment where he kind of reached an understanding of who is likely to vote for you and who is not. this is without a doubt the future of the democratic coalition. it consists mostly a white above the median income and minorities below it.
there were able to mobilize and half of the old coalition. half of the voters are non college white said. the projectory is unmistakable. but your projectory is unmistakable for the red and blue states. >> the passage of the tax initiative in california referendum indicates that the walls are coming down and some things from before. remember from the 1984 convention. he talked about raising taxes. that is no longer a taboo issue. i think you'll find some political liberal stuff and social liberal.
>> the racial division on this is enormous. and exit polls, 60% of voters said they wanted to repeal the health care bill. large portions of african- americans and hispanics want to maintain it. a big challenge for democrats is that it is time to help unify power and government whether it was under johnson, carter, clinton, obama, they have seen
their support among whites and plunge it said the delay. the challenge of convincing a much of white americans to benefit them is still on the table. the number you need to convince -- >> one of the problems the democratic party has had is that it has not been willing to defend government. it has always been specific. maybe obama learned something from his first term in terms of putting things into perspective. his victory speech had some of those elements. >> we will turn to the audience. please identify yourself. please say who you are. >> ok. david's point about the homogeneity of the house. what will the country do with this monumental number of issues?
they have the potential of the extreme and destructive to our domestic economy and world economy. does that homogeneity mean it will be impossible to get a compromise? all of you might want to comment on that. >> before the election and, we were heading for the most polarized congress in history. i think we are headed there. i have been warning people it will be harder to get something big past when congress is sworn in in january.
we have so many people who do have an incentive to reach across the aisle who are leaving after jan.. before the election, there was a lot of talk about the potential of democratic leader pelosi if democrats do not make significant gains in the house. will she step aside? it looks pretty clear that john boehner will still be the speaker. i think the democratic pickups that were made has emboldened democratic leader pelosi to stick around perhaps. how women and minorities are -- i think that is something she celebrates openly. i think the real problem is for house speaker boehner. he is between a rock and hard place. there are a lot of new members who i know lectured him when they were candidates about how republicans went back on their pledge in 2010 to hold the line
on debt and to repeal obamacare. the second was largely out of their control. and the majority of them saw the tea party as a liability. we might not have that some kind of will power going forward. >> with all due respect, it is not his choice anymore. what is different about this environment is that the bush tax rate will expire. we will revert to the rates under clinton for everyone unless president obama signed an extension. after this campaign, that would be pretty shocking. he ran explicitly but as a candidate to say that he will raise taxes on the top. unless he suddenly decides that, i didn't mean it, it does not really matter all that much what house speaker thinks.
the tax cut will expire unless obama is willing to extend it. that changes the whole dynamic. virtually all of the republicans have signed the grover norquist pledge to not raise tax rates. if the tax cuts expire at the end of the year and then in january you extended for 97% of americans, the new never voted to raise tax rates. your only cutting taxes. it is possible for something like that -- when the speaker said that yesterday, it was not really reflecting the world that he now lives in. unless the president is willing to extend the tax cuts, they will not be extended. >> i have a question for you. to what extent will there be a major -- the republican party
against the tea party? to what extent will there be a republican movement against the tea party? >> i do not know there'll be a strong movement against them. there is a fear of primaries, and least in congress. i do not think the biggest fear is not the person in the other party. i think the biggest fear is from within the party of the person who will take me out. >> within your own party, that will be the obstacle. >> i do not necessarily see their party distancing itself from the tea party. they have some very vocal elements. they are very conservative on immigr